Fainberg v. Fainberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fainberg v. Fainberg

380 So. 2d 506, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 23609

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1980

DocketNos. 79-1108, 79-1109

StatusPublished

This text of 380 So. 2d 506 (Fainberg v. Fainberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fainberg v. Fainberg, 380 So. 2d 506, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 23609 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of marriage dissolution and contempt order under review were within the discretion of the trial court to enter and are, accordingly, affirmed as being supported by substantial competent evidence. We have no authority to retry this case on appeal or disturb the trial court’s discretion herein in any way. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980); Ingram v. Ingram, 379 So.2d 955 (Fla.1980); Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 371 So.2d 672 (Fla.1979), adopting 352 So.2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); (Hubbart, J. dissenting); Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So.2d 650 (Fla.1976); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Koeppel v. Koeppel, 351 So.2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So.2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Silvers v. Silvers, 274 So.2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Studdle v. Studdle, 267 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Marcel v. Marcel, 132 So.2d 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of marriage dissolution and contempt order under review were within the discretion of the trial court to enter and are, accordingly, affirmed as being supported by substantial competent evidence. We have no authority to retry this case on appeal or disturb the trial court’s discretion herein in any way. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980); Ingram v. Ingram, 379 So.2d 955 (Fla.1980); Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 371 So.2d 672 (Fla.1979), adopting 352 So.2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); (Hubbart, J. dissenting); Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So.2d 650 (Fla.1976); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Koeppel v. Koeppel, 351 So.2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So.2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Silvers v. Silvers, 274 So.2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Studdle v. Studdle, 267 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Marcel v. Marcel, 132 So.2d 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 So. 2d 506, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 23609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fainberg-v-fainberg-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack